Roles of women in the church

[Empleh]

What are your beliefs about women in the Church? The Bible does clearly state in parts prescribed roles for men and women. A number of the apostles, including Paul, wrote about how women cannot speak in church and keep their heads covered. If they cannot speak, how is it that they can be Ministers and Pastors in Churches, WITHOUT their heads covered?

2000 years ago women didn't have the same rights that men do, and neither Jesus or the apostles said that they should. Infact, it leans more towards that they said they shouldn't.

If it's so easy to ignore what the Bible says about women in the Church, why is it so hard to ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality?

I'm not trying to point any fingers here, I would just like to know what your opinion is on this matter.

[M]

Oh, here we go!  I think that this question could led us into some discussion of human rights: women's and slaves.  

Not all Christian churches ordain women and some Christian churches do teach that women should be covered during services.

"A number of the apostles, including Paul, wrote about how women cannot speak in church and keep their heads covered."
This is not entirely true.  The only apostle who wrote about the headcovering of women was Paul.  The scripture is 1 Cor 11.  The chapter discusses propriety in worship, headcoverings on women and men’s hair styles.  1 Cor 14: 34- discusses orderly worship.  It also covers that part about women being silent and in submission.  Perhaps women talking during the service was causing problems, asking their husband’s questions.  So they are instructed to wait until they get home and ask their husbands then.  

Jewish traditions already existed in headcovering for men and women.  

I can list some websites with articles that explain the headcovering bit of this chapter more fully if you are interested.

Paul himself refers to several women in Romans 16 and thanking them for their work for the church.  Whether or not the women were deacons or married to deacons can be debated.  Many married couples are mentioned by Paul, particularly Priscilla and Aquila. ( Acts 18. )

My opinion. -   I am a woman who does cover.  I know where you are trying to take this argument.  

Some women feel they have been called to be ministers.  I do find that the more women do for a church, the less the men do.  Strong churches are made up of families: husbands and wives and all generations.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pay close attention to 1Co 11:16  But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.


It is called a custom, not a sin, whereas homosexuality is listed as a definite sin.

[asaph]

Custom. If custom is good and noble we should follow it for it leads to peace. It is customary for women in muslem countries to where headcoverings. Christians should follow suit there for it is not wrong nor sinful to do so but leads to peace. It is a matter of practicality. If the harlots were customarily wearing headcoverings as a sign of their practice do you think Paul would have encouraged Christians to do so? I think not. In America our culture, as a rule, does not wear headcoverings, does that make our women harlots? No. Headcoverings can be a hinderance because it is so out of the norm. And because it's not sinful to not wear a covering  we should not make it a Christian rule.
Let us not despise those who do or do not wear headcoverings.
Whatever is not of faith is sin.
asaph

[BigD]

PART 1

I like what Pastor C.R.Stam has to say about the roll of women in the Church in his commentary on "1 CORINTIANS"

CHAPTER XI

I Corinthians 11:1-34

HEADSHIP IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE HOME: I Cor. 11:1-16: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

"For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

"Doth not even nature itself teach you that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering.

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

FOLLOWING PAUL: While Verse 1 above is actually the close of the previous section (the end of the paragraph in the Greek) it is at the same time an introduction to the passage which we are now to discuss (11:2-16), for these verses from beginning to end have to do with authority.

It should be observed that the apostle does not say: "Follow me as I follow Jesus," but "Follow me as I follow Christ." Jesus was the God-given name by which our Lord was known when He walked this earth with His twelve apostles. But Paul had not even been saved at that time and surely did not follow Jesus. But Christ is His title as the "Anointed" of God. As Peter declared in his Pentecostal address, "that same Jesus," whom Israel had crucified, had now been exalted in heaven and made "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). It was as Lord and Christ, exalted "far above all," that Paul knew Him and followed Him as, by direct revelation, the Lord committed to him the glorious "mystery - hid from ages and from generations, but now . . . made manifest to His saints" (Col. 1:26).

Due to the spiritual condition of the Corinthians the apostle could not explore for them the depths of this glorious body of truth, but he did engage in "the preaching of the cross" upon which it was founded, and around which its "all spiritual blessings" revolved. What the apostle did preach to the Corinthians, these believers had evidently received with joy and still, with some exceptions, held to Paul as God's apostle to them and kept looking to him for more light. Thus in Ver. 2 he "praises" them for their faithfulness to him and to the truths he had made known to them.

It should be observed at this point that I Cor. 1:12 has to do with personalities rather than specific teachings. We know that Apollos watered what Paul had planted (I Cor. 3:6), and that Peter confirmed Paul's message as "the present truth" (11 Pet. 1:12; cf. Acts 15:9,11; Gal. 2:2-9; II Pet. 3:15-18). And surely our Lord had not returned to teach the Corinthians directly. Thus their "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" indicated rather preferences for personality or position, than divisions as to doctrine.

That these Corinthian saints in general still looked to Paul for further teaching is evidenced by the fact that they had written him at least one letter (7:1) of inquiry, to which this present chapter is probably a partial answer.

He follows his word of praise, however, with a "But," for there were questions as to authority on which they still needed instruction.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (Ver. 3).

While in general the brethren at Corinth followed Paul as to doctrine, too many of them failed to follow him as to attitude and conduct. And as they ignored Paul's authority, their women ignored their authority and this made for disorder in the congregation.

The apostle begins to deal with this problem by discussing a custom which prevailed among them at that time. A custom, we say, and a good custom, but still no more than that, and certainly in no way any part of the Mosaic Law or any command from Scripture. That it was only a custom is amply confirmed by Ver. 16. The significance of this custom we shall see as we go along.

There was in the Church at Corinth, as we say, a lack of respect for God-given authority, especially as it concerned the headship of the man over the woman. They had sort of a "Women's Lib" going there, and this evidenced itself by the repudiation of a custom - again, not a Scriptural law, but a significant custom still observed in some parts of the world today - that of the woman's wearing a

covering, or veil, on her head as a testimony to her subjection to her husband. Concerning this Paul says:

"Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, dishonoreth his head. "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven" (Vers. 4,5).

Since the apostle is discussing order in the church, he does not say that the man should wear a covering in prayer as an acknowledgement of his subjection to Christ, but that he should not wear such a covering since he represents Christ, the Head of the Body, in his headship over the woman (See Eph. 5:22-24). Moreover, in Ver. 7 he adds:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head106 forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."

But with the woman it is different. The hair is given to the woman as a natural covering, and it is in her nature to make much of her hair. She combs and brushes it. She arranges it to the best possible advantage. She may add a pretty comb or ribbon to make it more attractive, and it is in this connection that Paul says, "the woman is the glory of the man." How proud is the man of a modest wife, who keeps herself attractive! And the hair is part of this, as is "the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit which, in the sight of God, is of great price" (I Pet. 3:4). But a brazen, forward woman-who is attracted to her except for personal, temporal reasons? Even her closest women associates are apt to be jealous of her as she climbs past them.

Thus the additional "covering" dealt with in this passage is the woman's voluntary acknowledgement of her husband as her head - and, collectively, of the man as head over the woman, and of Christ as Head over the Church.

If she objects to wearing this covering, says the apostle, then "let her also be shorn" (speaking logically, of course), for her lack of the covering is here no different than if she were shaven (Ver. 5). And conversely, "if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, then let her be covered" (Ver. 6). When, in World War II, French women were caught collaborating with German soldiers, they were shorn completely and made to walk through the streets of France in that condition - most degrading humiliation. So much do women think of their hair. As we know, virtually no women are completely bald, as are so many men. This is a lesson from nature, concerning which the apostle continues:

"Judge in yourselves: is it comely [becoming] that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

"Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (Vers. 13-15).

For a time the "hippies" sought to reverse Verse 14, but any of them who are left should consider God's Word on the matter. He says that it is a shame for the man to wear long hair, and it is indeed sad to see young men, some of whom wish to appear so strong, let their hair grow down to their shoulders until they look like women - wearing the sign of the weaker vessel (I Pet. 3:7). Often this embarrasses their parents and loved ones, but most of all it displeases God, for His Word soundly condemns all forms of effeminate behavior in men, and the effeminate are listed with the most wicked sinners in I Cor. 6:9,10. Let us thank God that if saved, these rebels against God's order can take hope in Ver. 11 of the same passage.

But would not the wearing of an additional covering be demeaning to the woman? Does she need to acknowledge her subjection to her husband in this way? Let us look into the facts:

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man" (Ver. 8).

She was originally taken out of him and made from him -"of his flesh and his bones" (See Gen. 2:21,22).

And further:

"Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man" (Ver. 9).

Nothing could be clearer than the divine record of this:

"And the Lord God said; It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet [appropriate] for him" (Gen. 2:18).

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[BigD]

PART 2

"Women's Lib" is not a natural thing, for God has constructed the woman so that by nature she wants to please and help the man. How many women have married their mates almost solely on the basis that "He needs me," or that "I may be able to help him." And how many wives have indeed helped their husbands to be what they ought to be! How many a Christian woman has, in the sweetest, quietest way, helped her husband to curb his temper, to avoid exaggeration, etc., and have thus been used of God to help their husbands to be what they never could have been without them.

Thus the headship of the man over the woman is not the result of any effort on man's part to that end. This was clearly God's purpose for man, whom He had created in His own image, and to rebel against it now can only produce the disorder we see on every hand.

But are not some wives much more intelligent than their husbands? Of course. And are not some children much more intelligent than their parents? Does this give them justification for disobeying their parents? The question is entirely one of order, for God is a God of order. If any doubt this let them scan the universe about them. But does not all this tend to make the husband feel himself far above his wife with his wife far below, as if he did not even need her? it should not, for the apostle goes on to remind us:

"Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman withoutthe man, in the Lord.

"For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God" (Vers. 11, 12).

Ah, that small word "by." True the woman is of the man, but every man is brought into the world by a woman! Another reason for mutual love and respect between husband and wife.

BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS: I Cor. 11:10: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels."

In seeking for a clear explanation of this verse, the author was refreshed to read the following by Albert Barnes:

"There is scarcely a passage in the Scriptures which has more exercised the ingenuity of commentators than this verse. . . . There can perhaps, be no doubt that the word 'power' has reference to a veil, or to a covering for her head; but why it is called power I confess I do not understand; and most of the comments on the word are, in my view, egregious trifling."

And as to the words, "because of the angels," he says:

"I do not know what it means; and I regard it as one of the very few passages in the Bible whose meaning as yet is wholly inexplicable."

Such honesty is refreshing indeed! This writer agrees with Barnes that "no doubt the word 'power' has reference to a veil..... [by metonymy, as the symbol of subjection to authority]..... but why it is called 'power’, I confess I do not understand. But as to the words "because of the angels," perhaps it should be remembered that believers do bear witness to the angels, both good and bad. Indeed, "the manifold wisdom of God [the mystery]" is to be made known to heavenly "principalities and powers ... BY THE CHURCH" (Eph. 3:9,10). Is it not, then, appropriate that I Cor. 11:10 should remind us that the angels are looking on to observe either our godly order or the lack of it, or even rebellion against it?

NO SUCH CUSTOM: As we study Paul's word to these Corinthians, about a problem that affected them then, in their local situation, a custom and not a command of Scripture - not even of this one - we might tend to hold ourselves and other believers to this exact behavior. But the fact is that the vast majority of believers today, seeing a woman wearing a veil, or covering, at the church service would not have the slightest idea as to its possible significance.

There at Corinth, in that day, if a woman prayed or prophesied with her head uncovered it would, certainly could, indicate rebellion against her husband, but in our day and in our native land, the absence of a covering, or hat, on a woman would have no such significance.

When the author was a boy many women wore hats to church because of this chapter, but few do this today and if they did it would not necessarily signify that they meant to acknowledge their subjection to their husbands. Thus the apostle declares,

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither [do] the churches of God" (Ver. 16).

A closing word on this passage may be appropriate since the Feminists of our day and the Equal Rights Movement have had a significant effect upon many Christian women - especially among those who have had unhappy marriages. To these we can only say that the fact that Paul here discusses only a custom, does not for a moment neutralize the force of the principle he teaches: that of the headship of the man over the woman and her acknowledgment of this fact. But this we know: When indeed the husband loves his wife "as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it," the wife will almost certainly respond: "Who wouldn't want to live for a man like that!" (See Eph. 5:24,25).

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Much and Love The Lord!

[LedByTheLamb]

Well as a Christian woman Im going to get some glares from the women when I say that I dont believe women should have been given the right to vote, I dont believe we should have high roles in the church, and in fact our main job is to be helpmates to our husbands (if notmarried, then be some sort of missionary ect.) to obey and love our husbands and raise our children to be christians.  
I believe MEN should be the ones to vote. If a husband is obeying the bible, he will ask his wife's opinion and advice but in the end the decision is the mans job with no bickering or griping from wifey poo.
The same goes with the church.... I see no reason why women can't be teachers of bible studies, at least to other women. But when it comes to the head of the church (meaning the pastor) I simply think it should be a man and was intended to be that way.  Sure, I think it would be wonderful if all women covered their heads and faces...there sure would be a lot less men sinning and commiting adultery in their hearts.
I am not saying that women are less than men in God's eyes, but I think that if women would do THEIR roles and leave the men to theirs, then the men would be able to fully do their roles without women and our "equal rights" being in their way.
   sorry lol
Dawn

[LedByTheLamb]

Very well put Silver... I just didnt have the right words  
The reason I dont think women should vote is, well...women tend to have different issues than men and polititions will target women to get their votes and sorry to say but some women are just gullible.  They will vote for any man who talks about their equal rights, special rights ect. and turn a blind eye when he has bad morals.
Im not saying women are stupid..by any means but Eve WAS the gullible one!   I think men should vote, and should take into consideration their wife's opinions and advice on the matter when doing so.   Its sad, if so many women had not been taken advantage of by men, I dont think women would feel they need so much "freedom" and "equality" these days.

Dawn

Dawn

[M]

Posted by Ledbythelamb   "Sure, I think it would be wonderful if all women covered their heads and faces...there sure would be a lot less men sinning and commiting adultery in their hearts. "

I can accept the headcovering part but why do you suggest covering the face?  

What is your scriptural reference to covering of the face?  

[LedByTheLamb]

I dont have scriptual reference to cover the face.... it is a personal opinion of mine that if women covered their faces and bodies they would not be vain and would not tempt men.  

[peh]

What are your beliefs about women in the Church? The Bible does clearly state in parts prescribed roles for men and women. A number of the apostles, including Paul, wrote about how women cannot speak in church and keep their heads covered. If they cannot speak, how is it that they can be Ministers and Pastors in Churches, WITHOUT their heads covered?

Excuse the bluntness, but the Bible does NOT "clearly state.... prescribed roles for men and women."  Not insofar as being "Ministers and Pastors in Churches", for sure.

1 Timothy 2:12-15 for example:

Since neither leadership nor headship in the church are mentioned either in the verses or in the context of the verses used as an example, there is no evidence that they are specific to the "ordination of women to leadership".

The leap in logic required is not as difficult for we who live in this 21st century since we have had years of teaching and preaching of this supposition until we find it easy to believe Paul was speaking of church leadership in these verses.

Verse 12 says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."  To teach a man would not require one be a Minister or Pastor.  

To "usurp authority" would violate 1 Pet 5:5 (Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble).
Yet it would not require church leadership to perform this unScriptural behavior.

"to be in silence" does not translate out to keeping one's mouth closed in speechlessness.  In fact, the word translated "silence" would have been better interpreted as "quietness", per the Greek Lexicon.  

Furthermore, this word is defined by the same authority as "description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others".   One can hardly interpret this as telling women to stay home from church, can one?  We are commanded not to neglect the gathering together of ourselves. And, again, to "officiously meddle with the affairs of others" would violate the 1 Pet 5:5 verse.  

Going back to 1 tim verse 12 we can look up the word "suffer" and see that it is defined in the Greek Lexicon as "to turn to, transfer, commit, instruct".  

Usurp isn't actually in the manuscripts but the word "authority" is and is translated by the same reference as before as:

1.  one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2.  one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3.  an absolute master
4.  to govern, exercise dominion over one

alright, then, let's see:  in just a few minutes of research, we can re-interpret the verse (12) as:

 "I do not instruct women to teach or behave as if master of others (even those who most strenuously object to "women in ministry" will usually agree that "man" is generic for human), but to take care of their own business, not meddling officiously in others' affairs"

Seen in this light, the verse now fits extremely well with the rest of this discourse of Paul's on the proper behavior for church attendance, of which he himself says in 1 Tim 3:14-15 "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.  

Yet, even so, however the verse is translated, there is no mention here of "leadership" or whether such is appropriate for women or not.

I have no more time or energy for this today.   In hopes of seeing some genuine inquiries, I am